[JoeLatics]

(Original post by gladders)
Won't ever be. Drop it, Joe.

Still not heard any good reason why not. There are millions of buildings in Britain. I fail to see why the President would have to live in that particular one.

[R.P.Everything.]

It's not a huge issue to me, considering the Monarchy has very little real power. However, the Monarchy does represent the country on diplomatic visits, and it does promote Britain, yet is not held accountable by voters. Now Queen Elizabeth isn't doing a bad job, but I would like to choose who represents Britain as I certainly don't like the idea of King Charles or Queen Camilla.

And I don't buy the whole tourism argument. We'd probably get an equal amount of revenue if we had an elected president. Not only would tourists visit the president's quarters, but they'd still visit Buckingham Palace, even if the Queen isn't the Queen any more.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by M4LLY)
I think it could be because in this day and age some people may think the idea is a bit outdated. I'm not.bothered personally so long as they continue to benefit the country.

In what way do you think they benefit the country?

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
It's not a huge issue to me, considering the Monarchy has very little real power. However, the Monarchy does represent the country on diplomatic visits, and it does promote Britain, yet is not held accountable by voters. Now Queen Elizabeth isn't doing a bad job, but I would like to choose who represents Britain as I certainly don't like the idea of King Charles or Queen Camilla.

And I don't buy the whole tourism argument. We'd probably get an equal amount of revenue if we had an elected president. Not only would tourists visit the president's quarters, but they'd still visit Buckingham Palace, even if the Queen isn't the Queen any more.

I agree with your post on the whole, but the first line misses the point. Politically, the Queen is basically the PM's puppet. She does what he says, meaning that the 2 roles of Head of State and Head of Gov are essentially rolled into 1. That's fine in somewhere like the US where the branches of Government are totally separated, but here we have Executive Dominance to a ridiculous extent (admittedly less so at the minute due to the Government being a coalition, but that's only happened twice since 1945 IIRC). The problem isn't the amount of power Liz Windsor has, it's that that power is sucked elsewhere.

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
I agree with your post on the whole, but the first line misses the point. Politically, the Queen is basically the PM's puppet. She does what he says, meaning that the 2 roles of Head of State and Head of Gov are essentially rolled into 1. That's fine in somewhere like the US where the branches of Government are totally separated, but here we have Executive Dominance to a ridiculous extent (admittedly less so at the minute due to the Government being a coalition, but that's only happened twice since 1945 IIRC). The problem isn't the amount of power Liz Windsor has, it's that that power is sucked elsewhere.

I wouldn't like a US style president here in the UK to replace the Queen - it just adds another layer of political bureaucracy in terms of legislation with vetoing and all. I'm more in favour of the ceremonial head of state type - same powers as the Queen, and same powers as most other European presidents, but elected by the public, that's all.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
I wouldn't like a US style president here in the UK to replace the Queen - it just adds another layer of political bureaucracy in terms of legislation with vetoing and all. I'm more in favour of the ceremonial head of state type - same powers as the Queen, and same powers as most other European presidents, but elected by the public, that's all.

I agree on that front, with one important distinction - a codified constitution. The Pres can have ceremonial powers, and maybe power to send Bills to referendum if they feel there's a need for one. Stick in an impeachment mechanism (x% of the population sign a petition) so that power can't be abused, and Bingo we've solved it!

[somethingbeautiful]

I don't particularly care how much we pay to keep them there, I don't care how much money they generate - so using that as an argument to convince me will not work. My main gripes with the Monarchy are:

A) They don't work for what they've got (I'll explain below).
B) The monarchy is fundamentally sexist.
C) The religious aspect.

A)They don't work for what they've got. They're born into it. And to the people who will no doubt quote me to say ''oh actually Prince Banana/Princess Spongecake did X amount of 'duties' this year'' - really? Are you really going to give me that BS? That's work is it? Showing up to the opening of crisp packets, pulling a string to open a curtain revealing a shiny plaque, then getting in to the Rolls and going home to their tea and scones is work. **** off. Get a proper job.
Prince Harry/William could be in the Army/RAF without being Royal and they would earn the normal wage - what exactly are they doing in the Army/RAF which earns them the right to have the things that normal servicemen/women don't have? Nothing. So they only have all of their luxuries (payed by the tax payer) because they are Royal - they haven't worked for it. In fact Harry wouldn't have even got into Sandringham if it wasn't for the fact the he is Royal - his A-levels were rubbish and he has no degree.

To be clear: I don't care if you're born into a middle class family and ergo get to go to a better school than me/have a bigger house than me - you parents obviously worked hard for that. But the royals have a better life than us because we pay for it - they don't have to life a finger. That's wrong.

B) The Monarchy is fundamentally sexist:

Succession to the throne depends on gender (male preference), people wonder why women are still treated as 2nd class citizens. It's ingrained into our society because of our outdated monarchy - wake up.

C) The Religious Aspect:
The monarchy is built upon the idea that God has given the King/Queen the job of ruling over us and having us as their subjects. What a load of tripe. We have to bow down at their feet because they think they have responsibilities bestowed upon them by God? They're just human like us - they're not any better than us. They are flesh and blood like us, they are not above us. It's completely outdated. The national anthem, 'God save the Queen' - why? Why not any of us? What's so special about her? We're mostly a secularized society anyway. Most people who sing the National Anthem probably do not even go to church or even practice the Christian faith. At the State opening of Parliament the other day the priests (I think they were priests) had their usual spiel - why must we accept that as a representation of the UK? Is it just a case of: 'it you're born here, then you have to put up with Christianity being shoved in you face whenever The Queen/Royals are involved, and if you don't like it move elsewhere'? Why?

I would rather lose a load of tourist revenue and become a secularized, non-sexist society that shows people that hard work will reward you than have a monarchy that puts on a nice performance whenever there is a wedding/funeral/state opening etc.

Just my opinion.

[rmpr97]

Why?

Well for one they get over £150 million for doing their 'nonexistant' job.

They cost the taxpayer in a time when the taxpayer doesn't have much money.

Its quite authoritarian considering they're not elected in and they have the 'power' to do whatever.

Tourism? Really? I've had people over from elsewhere and never once have the said 'Lets go see the Queens house'.

What would be good for tourism, if we had no monarchy, and then we could go inside the Queens house, look at it all nice, maybe put in a cafe and have a coffee there and then run around in her garden.

It brings pride? Really? Not once have I said 'jee whiz I'm proud of our Royal family. Not only do they do ****e all but Prince Phillip & Charles go around like perverts. Fergie goes selling access to people. Harry goes round dressing like a Nazi. Oh and the Queen just waves.'

Oh, and the taxpayer have had to foot the bill for how many weddings that we have never been invited to. Yet foreign leaders who didn't pay for it go and have some of Will & Kate's cake.

And another reason I don't like the Queen. Because she boycotts the Park Lane Hilton because it overlooks her palace garden. Not that I have an affiliation or interest in the hotel but it just made me think 'What and arrogant spoilt prick. What because while you drink the tea the taxpayer pays for, while you're wearing a million pound dress the taxpayer had paid for looking at your garden you can see the hotel that is the TAXPAYER. **** off

[MancStudent098]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Where's your proof? In Visit Britain's list of the top 20 tourist destinations, only 1 monarchy related venue is present, Windsor Castle at number 17 (quite soundly beaten, by the way, by Windsor Le

I seem to remember Tony Benn suggesting that if the Royal Family really was able to pay back its way in tourism it should be funded by the UK tourist board. I actually don't think it's a bad suggestion.

I think in reality there is a PR benefit to the royals, Americans in particular get excited about the royals in a way that they're never going to over a UK president. They do also help maintain a link to the commonwealth, although it's debatable whether it's any stronger than it would be otherwise.

Maybe the answer is just to get more ruthlessly mercenary about monetising them - I reckon Wills & Kate alone can easily drag in £40m a year in sponsorship. Even Hazza can probably generate a bit of cash if we slap his face on cans of lager...

[ukip72]

(Original post by Subology)
Voter turn out for the French presidential elections was over 70%. That is like nothing we ever see in Britain. I really think how we do politics here is stale and stagnant. Is it because we lack a president? that's probably not the primary reason, but I think it is a minor one and should be addressed.

Voter turnout, what a strange argument. People should be just as motivated to vote in general election as they would in a presidential election (which I hope we never see in this country).

[ForKicks]

This seems to be quite a common thread.

Republican argument is always: Meritocracy, equality, costs, and democracy

Meritocracy fails because the Royal Family are independently wealthy and not open to corruption or the backing of big business. Furthermore, the Royal Family have a life-time of education being prepared for the role, a President has no specific training. On top of that, the Queen's duty is foreign relations. 5 years is not enough time to build up and maintain consistency, with each President being different.

Equality is one of those ridiculously subjective arguments. It is based on a theoretical principle and holds no merit in deciding whether we should maintain a monarchy.

Costs are vague and there is a lot of dispute over whether the royal family would be more or less expensive. There is no consensus and is not a strong argument. I know that a complete overhaul of the system, voting, Presidential aircraft, advisors etc cannot be overlooked though.

Finally, with regards to democracy the Queen holds no ruling power. On top of that, the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Parliament could remove the powers of the monarch if they wish. Have an issue, then talk to your MP.

All in all, there is no convincing argument for a republic and the arguments that do exist rest on vague and subjective principles.

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Still not heard any good reason why not. There are millions of buildings in Britain. I fail to see why the President would have to live in that particular one.

I have told you many times. The new place would have to accomodate the president and be big enough for his staff and to receive visiting VIPs; moreover it would have to be security hardened like any other government building and a large perimeter established around it, much like what happens to Parliament, Downing Street, the White House of Elysee Palace. Choosing another building is possible but extremely wasteful of public money to do, when you already have Buckingham Palace available and already security-hardened.

If you criticize the monarchy for waste and then feel justified in splurging on a new presidential building for now reason, you're a hypocrite.

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
I agree with your post on the whole, but the first line misses the point. Politically, the Queen is basically the PM's puppet. She does what he says, meaning that the 2 roles of Head of State and Head of Gov are essentially rolled into 1. That's fine in somewhere like the US where the branches of Government are totally separated, but here we have Executive Dominance to a ridiculous extent (admittedly less so at the minute due to the Government being a coalition, but that's only happened twice since 1945 IIRC). The problem isn't the amount of power Liz Windsor has, it's that that power is sucked elsewhere.

Nope. The Prerogative is exercised by the PM but the PM is accountable for its exercise to the Parliament. Likewise I would expect any president to operate in the same way; any action in the face of Parliament's wishes in undemocratic, and that includes if it's done by an elected president.

[M4LLY]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
In what way do you think they benefit the country?

Basically they are part of British Heritage and they help to generate tourism because people want to see where they live etc.

[Azog 150]

So we wouldn't get any more of these bloody monarchy threads

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
I agree on that front, with one important distinction - a codified constitution. The Pres can have ceremonial powers, and maybe power to send Bills to referendum if they feel there's a need for one. Stick in an impeachment mechanism (x% of the population sign a petition) so that power can't be abused, and Bingo we've solved it!

I've addressed this once before about a month ago. You never came back to me.

[Dubliner]

Well, personally I think it is a ridiculous idea. I'm very fond of Britain, you are a great and cultured country that, amongst other things, makes the best radio and television in the world (by a country mile), but I'll never, ever understand the inexplicable attachment to the Queen and the monarchy.

Surely a republic is the ideal solution for everyone? Members of the former royal family could stand for president if they want to, rather than having the role of monarch inflicted on them whether they like it or not. Chances are they'll win, pleasing those sympathetic to the royal family and republicans will be happy aswell as they've at least been given a choice. Add in the money you'd save from not subsidising one of the richest families in the country and it seems like a winner all round?

[Tahooper]

(Original post by Jono404)
The crown estates were surrendered centuries ago in exchange for a fixed civil list payment, so no, we don't make any money off them AFAIK. France has the biggest tourism industry in the world and it's a republic. Aside from financial issues though an non elected head of state is an anachronism. We regularly see people who scrounge of benefits demonised in the media yet our head of state and her family are the worst culrprits.

France may be a Republic and it may also have a larger tourism industry, but if we ended our Constitutional Monarchy our tourism industry would be even worse.

[gladders]

(Original post by rmpr97)
Why?

Well for one they get over £150 million for doing their 'nonexistant' job.

Nonexistent? So are the presidents of Germany and Italy conducting nonexistent jobs too?

The £150 million is not for their personal enjoyment (if that figure is at all accurate), but the base cost of the head of state, regardless of whether it were a monarchy or a president.

They cost the taxpayer in a time when the taxpayer doesn't have much money.

Whatever occupies that post will cost the same amount of money.

Its quite authoritarian considering they're not elected in and they have the 'power' to do whatever.

What? They do not have the power to do 'whatever'. You clearly don't know what authoritarian means.

Tourism? Really? I've had people over from elsewhere and never once have the said 'Lets go see the Queens house'.

Anecdotal.

What would be good for tourism, if we had no monarchy, and then we could go inside the Queens house, look at it all nice, maybe put in a cafe and have a coffee there and then run around in her garden.

Not possible - Buckingham Palace would become the president's residence.

It brings pride? Really? Not once have I said 'jee whiz I'm proud of our Royal family. Not only do they do ****e all but Prince Phillip & Charles go around like perverts. Fergie goes selling access to people. Harry goes round dressing like a Nazi. Oh and the Queen just waves.

You're projecting your opinions onto the country. Most of the country likes the monarchy.

Oh, and the taxpayer have had to foot the bill for how many weddings that we have never been invited to. Yet foreign leaders who didn't pay for it go and have some of Will & Kate's cake.

The taxpayer only paid for security - which would be standard for an event of great public interest. Next time we have a big football match I'll say we shouldn't pay for football fans' interests, yes?

And another reason I don't like the Queen. Because she boycotts the Park Lane Hilton because it overlooks her palace garden. Not that I have an affiliation or interest in the hotel but it just made me think 'What and arrogant spoilt prick. What because while you drink the tea the taxpayer pays for, while you're wearing a million pound dress the taxpayer had paid for looking at your garden you can see the hotel that is the TAXPAYER. **** off

What on earth are you talking about?

[Pindar]

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
[*]Britain makes £200 million pounds from the monarchs, and only costs 40 million to actually have them

No... you're wrong. A conservative estimate is they cost at least £190 million per year to the British taxpayer.

A sum which could be spent on hospitals, education, infrastructure, tax breaks, tuition fees, you name it.

It is the equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and the Ministry of Defence total annual spending on food. Considering police officers around the country went on strike today because they're losing their jobs... puts it into perspective. All for the benefit of one incredibly greedy and self-important family who think they're better than everyone else. Yet 1 in 5 of people in Britain are below the poverty line, i.e. have to live in a state of poverty because of this greed.

The true amount could be much higher as the National Audit Office is not allowed to audit the Royal household and Freedom of Information requests are denied.

Forbes magazine estimated the Queen's net worth at around US$450 million. The Queen receives £7,900,000 a year from public funds, even though she makes millions more per year through her businesses and owns several castles and palaces. Funny how we gave Saddam stick for having a few palaces, yet we don't if it's the Queen.

So she obviously doesn't need the money. Yet we keep on giving it to her.

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
[*]The government get all the monarchs land so we're actual richer

No... they don't.

Technically all the land in the UK belongs to the monarch and we are just her tenants. Hence why we have to pay her so much in tax just to live here.

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
[*]It brings pride to our nation

No it doesn't... it's a severe embarrassment. The fact that we still institutionalise a family to be superior to everyone else simply because of their "blood". It's so archaic and demented. We're the laughing stock of the world.

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
[*]It costs less than a £1 per person in the country

That's so reassuring when we're 900 billions pounds in debt , I'm so glad we're spending more for some family who have never worked a day in their lives to live a life of decadence and luxury that they constantly flaunt in our faces.

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
[*]And no if we got rid of the Monarchy it wouldn't be as popular. It's exciting to think we have our very own living monarchy in London, if they died out hundreds of years we'd get some tourism but we'd make less.

It's not exciting. It's seriously depressing. If they died out Britain would be a much better place.

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
So, why do you want to get rid of the monarchy? We make money from this, and if we got rid of them profits would be less as it's not as interesting, we may aswell just go to a mueseum in that case.

It's an undemocratic, unaccountable institution with no place in a modern society. It costs far more to our democracy and our economy, financing countless wasteful Royal Weddings and Jubilees that jeopardise our economy to celebrate a family's dominance over us.